Wadda you got?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

B1 grabs A1 from behind, foul. A1 says," Get off me!" and throws his elbow back and up at B1's head, but misses. Is that not fighting under the definition of attempting to strike an opponent? For me I can't see how that is different than A1 throwing a punch.
[/B]

The difference, imo, is the can of worms that you just opened up. Yeah, you could probably technically classify that act as a "fight" under the language of R4-18-1. If you do want to classify that as a "fight" however, that act now becomes an automatic flagrant foul plus an ejection. Now, if someone else throws an elbow that doesn't hit anyone later on in the game, it's pretty much guaranteed that you're gonna have a coach jumping up and down, pointing his finger, and hollering "FIGHT" at you. Especially if that coach's player was the one that you threw out for "fighting" earlier. Imo, you just painted yourself into a corner when it comes to how the call could be classified. I don't care what explanation you come up with trying to explain why this elbow is a violation and not a "fight", but the last one really was a "fight", you aren't gonna convince that coach. It's become a simple matter of "consistency" to them. However, if you just use R4-19-4 or R4-19-5 instead, you can then judge each separate act as to whether it was flagrant or not, without having to get into a "must eject" mode. [/B][/QUOTE]

Why should we care what the coach is going to say later. If we deem the act as a fight, i.e. the player meant to strike the player, than I'm penalizing the act based on the act. I'm not taking the easy way out, just to cover my butt later, in case another player swings their elbows.

If you deem it as flagrant under 4-19-4 you still eject them, so what is the difference? You will still have the same problem with the coach later on if another player swings their elbows.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

The difference, imo, is the can of worms that you just opened up. Yeah, you could probably technically classify that act as a "fight" under the language of R4-18-1. If you do want to classify that as a "fight" however, that act now becomes an automatic flagrant foul plus an ejection. Now, if someone else throws an elbow that doesn't hit anyone later on in the game, it's pretty much guaranteed that you're gonna have a coach jumping up and down, pointing his finger, and hollering "FIGHT" at you. Especially if that coach's player was the one that you threw out for "fighting" earlier. Imo, you just painted yourself into a corner when it comes to how the call could be classified. I don't care what explanation you come up with trying to explain why this elbow is a violation and not a "fight", but the last one really was a "fight", you aren't gonna convince that coach. It's become a simple matter of "consistency" to them. However, if you just use R4-19-4 or R4-19-5 instead, you can then judge each separate act as to whether it was flagrant or not, without having to get into a "must eject" mode. [/B]

Why should we care what the coach is going to say later. If we deem the act as a fight, i.e. the player meant to strike the player, than I'm penalizing the act based on the act. I'm not taking the easy way out, just to cover my butt later, in case another player swings their elbows.

If you deem it as flagrant under 4-19-4 you still eject them, so what is the difference? You will still have the same problem with the coach later on if another player swings their elbows. [/B][/QUOTE]The difference is that I don't HAVE to deem it flagrant. You do if you call it a fight. I can judge each elbow on it's merits, and I'm not gonna be second-guessed on every missed elbow from then on. And that's certainly not taking the easy way out either. If I think that the act was flagrant, then it's buh-bye. But I'm not painting myself into a corner on every run-of-the-mill missed elbow violation. Once you call a missed elbow "fighting" however, the coach is gonna want EVERY missed elbow called the same way.

Obviously, you disagree. We'll just have to leave it that way.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Why should we care what the coach is going to say later. If we deem the act as a fight, i.e. the player meant to strike the player, than I'm penalizing the act based on the act. I'm not taking the easy way out, just to cover my butt later, in case another player swings their elbows.

If you deem it as flagrant under 4-19-4 you still eject them, so what is the difference? You will still have the same problem with the coach later on if another player swings their elbows. [/B]

The difference is that I don't HAVE to deem it flagrant. You do if you call it a fight. I can judge each elbow on it's merits, and I'm not gonna be second-guessed on every missed elbow from then on. And that's certainly not taking the easy way out either. If I think that the act was flagrant, then it's buh-bye. But I'm not painting myself into a corner on every run-of-the-mill missed elbow violation. Once you call a missed elbow "fighting" however, the coach is gonna want EVERY missed elbow called the same way.

Obviously, you disagree. We'll just have to leave it that way. [/B][/QUOTE]

Where did I say EVERY missed elbow was fighting?

I said I can see an elbow used in a way that does not fall under "swinging", but does under "fighting". Again, I could not care less if the coach would want every call ruled the same way. Consistency is not black and white, one missed elbow is an apple and another could be an orange. If one falls under fighting, it's fighting. I'm not injecting the next one, that might occur, nor the coaches reaction into my decision.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

[/B]

Where did I say EVERY missed elbow was fighting?

I said I can see an elbow used in a way that does not fall under "swinging", but does under "fighting". Again, I could not care less if the coach would want every call ruled the same way. Consistency is not black and white, one missed elbow is an apple and another could be an orange. If one falls under fighting, it's fighting. I'm not injecting the next one, that might occur, nor the coaches reaction into my decision. [/B][/QUOTE]As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I would NEVER call a missed elbow "fighting". Might deem it a flagrant act under some special circumstances, but never "fighting".

[justacoach]

Thanks for the enlightenment. I am always astounded at the deep and complete understanding of the rules nuances espoused by the esteemed members of this board. Could it be some of you are also Talmudic scholars or have benefit of training from Jesuit logicians??

I frequently refer officials to this board in the hope they can be motivated to improve their game.

We have always taught our players to chin the ball with elbows extended and to pivot away from pressure. We further explain that swinging elbows faster than the rest of the body is dangerous and is to be avoided both from a safety aspect and to avoid the draconian penalty that had been in force from '90's.
I was very interested in the points raised by the POE in 2002-2003 and thought I had a good handle on how this was to be treated. It was at this time that I determined to gain a closer acquaintance with the actual FED Rules book and also happened upon this discussion group.

What I have learned from this discussion

1. The horizontal elbow jerk mechanic can only denote a violation. I have often seen it used in my area when reporting a foul to the table. If a foul is deemed to have occurred it can only be one of the following...
P/C, Intentional or Flagrant, based on the judgement of the official as to severity. Ergo swinging of the arms/elbows that results in slight contact should be construed as P/C foul. Greater force may escalate it to intentional or flagrant.

2. As specified in 10-13-3, our long-time coaching points seem to be validated

SECTION 13 EXCESSIVE SWINGING OF ARM(S)/ELBOW(S)
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms(s) or elbows, even without contacting an opponent.
ART. 2 . . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.
ART. 3 . . . Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

I am still in a quandary about Art. 3 above. The circumstances where we drill our players to chin the ball and pivot are involved with defensive rebounding.

If the defense is swarming my rebounder and attacking the ball, my player is going to chin and pivot to prevent a held ball.
What if, in the course of his full body pivot with elbows extended, he should make significant contact with one of the swarming defenders?

Please give me guidelines that you use in this situation.
Are his "total body movements"s with arms and elbows tolerated in light of 10-13-3 and does the defense have a greater duty to avoid contact??
I seem to be running into a majority of officials who have a glancing familiarity with the POE but who never read all the way down to Art. 3

Again, thanks for your guidance

I have a ready-made excuse...


I'm

justacoach

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by justacoach


We have always taught our players to chin the ball with elbows extended and to pivot away from pressure. We further explain that swinging elbows faster than the rest of the body is dangerous and is to be avoided both from a safety aspect and to avoid the draconian penalty that had been in force from '90's.
I was very interested in the points raised by the POE in 2002-2003 and thought I had a good handle on how this was to be treated. It was at this time that I determined to gain a closer acquaintance with the actual FED Rules book and also happened upon this discussion group.

What I have learned from this discussion

1. The horizontal elbow jerk mechanic can only denote a violation. I have often seen it used in my area when reporting a foul to the table. If a foul is deemed to have occurred it can only be one of the following...
P/C, Intentional or Flagrant, based on the judgement of the official as to severity. Ergo swinging of the arms/elbows that results in slight contact should be construed as P/C foul. Greater force may escalate it to intentional or flagrant.

2. As specified in 10-13-3, our long-time coaching points seem to be validated

SECTION 13 EXCESSIVE SWINGING OF ARM(S)/ELBOW(S)
ART. 1 . . . A player shall not excessively swing his/her arms(s) or elbows, even without contacting an opponent.
ART. 2 . . . A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.
ART. 3 . . . Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

I am still in a quandary about Art. 3 above. The circumstances where we drill our players to chin the ball and pivot are involved with defensive rebounding.

If the defense is swarming my rebounder and attacking the ball, my player is going to chin and pivot to prevent a held ball.
What if, in the course of his full body pivot with elbows extended, he should make significant contact with one of the swarming defenders?

Please give me guidelines that you use in this situation.
Are his "total body movements"s with arms and elbows tolerated in light of 10-13-3 and does the defense have a greater duty to avoid contact??
I seem to be running into a majority of officials who have a glancing familiarity with the POE but who never read all the way down to Art. 3

Coach, the correct rule is 9-13, not 10-13.

Hopefully this will help; take a look at p's 70&71 in the rulebook- the ones labelled "Rough Play- Guidelines for Teaching and Officiating". Under "C-Post Play", note the language used:
1) "When the offensive player then uses the swim stroke, pushes, pins, elbows, forearms, hold, clears with the body, or just demonstrates rough physical movement, this is a foul on the offensive plasyer and must be called without warning".
2) "The defense can establish a legal, vertical stance or position on the side, front or behind the offensive player"

5) "When a player uses hands, forearms or ELBOWS to prevent an opponent maintaining a LEGAL position, IT IS A FOUL."

Once the defender has established a legal position on the floor, the player with the ball cannot then legally dislodge that defender from his legal position. That includes the player with the ball pivoting into the defender, and making contact with an elbow.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 10th, 2004 at 10:19 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by justacoach
1. If a foul is deemed to have occurred it can only be one of the following...
P/C, Intentional or Flagrant,

That's true only if the player has control of the ball (as is usually the case).

If the player doesn't have the ball, it'c can't be a PC foul, but can be (just) a common foul.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Coach, the correct rule is 9-13, not 10-13.

Hopefully this will help; take a look at p's 70&71 in the rulebook- the ones labelled "Rough Play- Guidelines for Teaching and Officiating". Under "C-Post Play", note the language used:
1) "When the offensive player then uses the swim stroke, pushes, pins, elbows, forearms, hold, clears with the body, or just demonstrates rough physical movement, this is a foul on the offensive plasyer and must be called without warning".
2) "The defense can establish a legal, vertical stance or position on the side, front or behind the offensive player"

5) "When a player uses hands, forearms or ELBOWS to prevent an opponent maintaining a LEGAL position, IT IS A FOUL."

Once the defender has established a legal position on the floor, the player with the ball cannot then legally dislodge that defender from his legal position. That includes the player with the ball pivoting into the defender, and making contact with an elbow.

Coach -- As long it was pivoting, and involves body movement, it's just a PC foul, if anything. the elbows aren't in the "cylinder of verticality" when they are extended and the ball is chinned. Furthermore, the player is allowed to move the ball around with elbows extended, and the motion will not be considered an "elbows" violation, but contact that displaces the opponent, or hampers normal defensive movements could still be a foul.

[Hawks Coach]

rainmaker
The only point I would make is that the elbow being outside the body makes no difference in this case. If the offensive player pivots into the defensive player, regardless of what makes contact, that player is committing a PC foul. If the defender has LGP, it doesn't matter how the offensive player makes the contact, it is still illegal.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
rainmaker
The only point I would make is that the elbow being outside the body makes no difference in this case. If the offensive player pivots into the defensive player, regardless of what makes contact, that player is committing a PC foul. If the defender has LGP, it doesn't matter how the offensive player makes the contact, it is still illegal.

That's what I was trying to say, as regards any contact. But also, if there's no contact, and the ball-handler is trying to "feint, release or move the ball to avoid a held ball" , then there's no violation. The omvement of the ball is the point, in the case of deciding whether to call a violation. Contact is the point in deciding whether to call a foul.

[oref]

Does everyone agree with these outcomes under NFHS rules:

B1 establishes LGP between A1 and basket. B1 is completely vertical, A1 raises ball above head for try and, before release, A1 elbows B1 in the chopps, B1 falls to the floor, then A1's try fails. Blood & tears flow as B1 first attempts to continue play. A1's secont try succeeds and B1 voluntarilly leaves court.

M:Goal counts.

B2 drives past center court and is tackled by A2 and knocked to the floor.

M:Blocking.

B2 drives towards basket and is tackled by A2 and knocked to the floor.

M:Blocking.

All occur in first 4 minutes of game. B1 and B2, respectively, appear to be teams best inside and outside players.

Last question, same game: A1 and B1 collide after loose ball. Both players fall, A1 stays down, play continues with A1's team in possession. After missed try, B1 obtains possession and drives back to basket where A1 is still horizontal.

M:Stop clock.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by oref
Does everyone agree with these outcomes under NFHS rules:

I don't.

[oatmealqueen]

Originally posted by oref
Does everyone agree with these outcomes under NFHS rules:

B1 establishes LGP between A1 and basket. B1 is completely vertical, A1 raises ball above head for try and, before release, A1 elbows B1 in the chopps, B1 falls to the floor, then A1's try fails. Blood & tears flow as B1 first attempts to continue play. A1's secont try succeeds and B1 voluntarilly leaves court.

M:Goal counts.

B2 drives past center court and is tackled by A2 and knocked to the floor.

M:Blocking.

B2 drives towards basket and is tackled by A2 and knocked to the floor.

M:Blocking.

All occur in first 4 minutes of game. B1 and B2, respectively, appear to be teams best inside and outside players.

Last question, same game: A1 and B1 collide after loose ball. Both players fall, A1 stays down, play continues with A1's team in possession. After missed try, B1 obtains possession and drives back to basket where A1 is still horizontal.

M:Stop clock.

Yikes.
I don't agree.

[oref]

Mod,
OMQ,

With which outcome do you find a problem?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by oref
Mod,
With which outcome do you find a problem?

MOD??? I don't know bob particularly well, but Mod doesn't match what I do know of him. Plaid pants, paisley shirt, peace symbol medallion, large 'fro... Somehow it just doesn't fit.